Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

>>Ask *James Jacobs* ALL your Questions Here!<<


Off-Topic Discussions

23,651 to 23,700 of 49,196 << first < prev | 469 | 470 | 471 | 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | next > last >>
Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

What kind of action is activating a witch Prehensile Hair?
it is a hex, so apparently it is a standard action, but the power say they grow instantly.

Prehensile Hair wrote:


Prehensile Hair (Su): The witch can instantly cause her hair (or even her eyebrows) to grow up to 10 feet long or to shrink to its normal length, and can manipulate her hair as if it were a limb with a Strength score equal to her Intelligence score. Her hair has reach 10 feet, and she can use it as a secondary natural attack that deals 1d3 points of damage (1d2 for a Small witch). Her hair can manipulate objects (but not weapons) as dexterously as a human hand. The hair cannot be sundered or attacked as a separate creature. Pieces cut from the witch's elongated hair shrink away to nothing. Using her hair does not harm the witch's head or neck, even if she lifts something heavy with it. The witch can manipulate her hair a number of minutes each day equal to her level; these minutes do not need to be consecutive, but must be spent in 1-minute increments. A typical male witch with this hex can also manipulate his beard, moustache, or eyebrows.


Pathfinder Campaign Setting Subscriber
kagenotora wrote:

hi, my group and i have been trying to find a solution to a problem wealth related about an character, maybe you got an idea that would help. the character's concept is quite simple at first but problems start to surface at level 6 :/

the said concept is a character that throw daggers, simple right? with a bit of TWF so as to make it rain steel.

IANJJ, but there's an item in Ultimate Equipment called the Blinkback Belt that, for 5k gold, holds 4 light melee weapons and teleports them back to their sheathes immediately after they are thrown if thrown in the same turn they were drawn. Paired with Quick Draw, that should let your player get the attacks they want.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
agnelcow wrote:
kagenotora wrote:

hi, my group and i have been trying to find a solution to a problem wealth related about an character, maybe you got an idea that would help. the character's concept is quite simple at first but problems start to surface at level 6 :/

the said concept is a character that throw daggers, simple right? with a bit of TWF so as to make it rain steel.

IANJJ, but there's an item in Ultimate Equipment called the Blinkback Belt that, for 5k gold, holds 4 light melee weapons and teleports them back to their sheathes immediately after they are thrown if thrown in the same turn they were drawn. Paired with Quick Draw, that should let your player get the attacks they want.

oups :D should have waited till i'd finish reading ultimate equipment to ask about that one ^^


1) At which point during Pharasma's judgment process is a samsaran (or for that matter, other souls) divested of the bulk of their mortal memories?

2) What does Pharasma do with the memories? I apologize if I'm misremembering the whole "removal of memories" bit.

3) I've noticed that a number of "probable ally" NPCs in the Adventure Paths are Chaotic Neutral. Examples include Juliver in Serpent's Skull, Quimbly in Carrion Crown, and the Besmeran cleric introduced in book 1 of Skull & Shackles. What's reasoning behind the various Chaotic Neutral friendly NPCs? My assumption has been along the line of "NPC ______ has a specific goal (rescue Kline, avenge mom, etc.) and is willing to work with the party no matter what the party is actually like" but I don't know how correct that is.

As a side note, that Besmeran cleric's entry reads more like she's Chaotic Good than Chaotic Neutral. Chaotic Neutral isn't an alignment I usually associate with people as actively helpful as she is.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Do you recall what Numerian Leaf Armor was?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Lucent wrote:

Thanks so much for the prompt answers, JJ! It's great that you do this for the community, it really is.

1) In regards to the crown of the world:

I read that there is an ancient ruin(s?) at the crown of the world that predate Azlant. Are they Serpentfolk ruins? Cyclopean ruins? Or something older?

Has that site been detailed more in previous modules/APs?

2) On Clockworks:

Where in Golarion did clockwork technology originate? The "clicking caves" in Tian-Xia seem to indicate that the technology has been around a long time.

Are clockworks what are present in Numeria (the gearsmen)? Or is that more robotic than clockwork?

Based on the Bestiary 3 entries I was hoping that Distant Worlds would have had more information, but what was there seemed to be more robotic and less clockwork.

1) Pathfinder #51 is set entirely in the Crown of the World, and also has a big article about the continent. We reveal more about those ruins (but not EVERYTHING) in that volume.

2) Clockwork technology first originated in Azlant... so more than 12,000 years ago. The metal men of Numeria are not clockworks; they're full-on actual robots. There's some more info coming in Pathfinder #66 about clockworks, though!

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Diego Rossi wrote:

What kind of action is activating a witch Prehensile Hair?

it is a hex, so apparently it is a standard action, but the power say they grow instantly.

Prehensile Hair wrote:


Prehensile Hair (Su): The witch can instantly cause her hair (or even her eyebrows) to grow up to 10 feet long or to shrink to its normal length, and can manipulate her hair as if it were a limb with a Strength score equal to her Intelligence score. Her hair has reach 10 feet, and she can use it as a secondary natural attack that deals 1d3 points of damage (1d2 for a Small witch). Her hair can manipulate objects (but not weapons) as dexterously as a human hand. The hair cannot be sundered or attacked as a separate creature. Pieces cut from the witch's elongated hair shrink away to nothing. Using her hair does not harm the witch's head or neck, even if she lifts something heavy with it. The witch can manipulate her hair a number of minutes each day equal to her level; these minutes do not need to be consecutive, but must be spent in 1-minute increments. A typical male witch with this hex can also manipulate his beard, moustache, or eyebrows.

Using the ability is a standard action, but the strands themselves lengthen as appropriate to do the task they need to do without you needing to spend an action to do so.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

kagenotora wrote:

hi, my group and i have been trying to find a solution to a problem wealth related about an character, maybe you got an idea that would help. the character's concept is quite simple at first but problems start to surface at level 6 :/

the said concept is a character that throw daggers, simple right? with a bit of TWF so as to make it rain steel.

the problem? first we're looking at 3 +1 returning daggers +2 every 6 lvl (or 8 if done with a medium BAB class) which doesn't even make the trick since a returning weapon come back at the hand of your turn and need to be catch so at lvl 6 asuming you managed to find the 40K gold for 5 daggers you'll throw 4 and 3 will fall at your feets :/

we thought of 4 ideas to work around the problem:

1- house ruling that returning weapon come back immediately so that the character needs only 2 daggers.

2- house ruling that a character with the quick draw feat can Sheathe a returning weapon as part of the free action to catch it when it return, that doesn't change the cost problem but at least the character can keep throwing his daggers after the first round.

3- creating daggers like the ricochet hammer, the character would only be able to make up to two attacks per enemy but at least if there's enough of them he'll get all his attacks for considerably less than idea Nb 2.

4- creating a pair of item (gloves,bracer or scabbard for example) that would be enchanted like a double weapon and would have the ability to spawn daggers (at the same cost in action as drawing a weapon) that last only till taken out of the target or something like that. or simply instead of being enchanted the pair of items could be able to spawn copies of daggers stored in it like in a 'glove of storing' but taking a ritual of sorts to store the daggers.

i'm really hoping to hear your thoughts on that kind of character and those ideas, as you could be aware of implications that we didn't see on helping that kind of character, or that this kind of character isn't meant to be for a reason that we're not aware of, and you being a creative director and all might be the best one to answer or confirm such concerns.

thanks for your time.

Thrown weapons are really pretty tricky to do, since returning doesn't allow them to come back fast enough to make full attacks, unfortunately. It's a type of build that really doesn't work well with the game rules unless you just load yourself up with lots of weapons and use Quick Draw to make drawing them a free action.

Of your four solutions... I like something like solution 4—a magic item that enables the build to function.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Cheapy wrote:
Do you recall what Numerian Leaf Armor was?

Never heard of it. And it doesn't really make sense, since Numeria's about technology, and leaves are not technological...

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Zhangar wrote:

1) At which point during Pharasma's judgment process is a samsaran (or for that matter, other souls) divested of the bulk of their mortal memories?

2) What does Pharasma do with the memories? I apologize if I'm misremembering the whole "removal of memories" bit.

3) I've noticed that a number of "probable ally" NPCs in the Adventure Paths are Chaotic Neutral. Examples include Juliver in Serpent's Skull, Quimbly in Carrion Crown, and the Besmeran cleric introduced in book 1 of Skull & Shackles. What's reasoning behind the various Chaotic Neutral friendly NPCs? My assumption has been along the line of "NPC ______ has a specific goal (rescue Kline, avenge mom, etc.) and is willing to work with the party no matter what the party is actually like" but I don't know how correct that is.

As a side note, that Besmeran cleric's entry reads more like she's Chaotic Good than Chaotic Neutral. Chaotic Neutral isn't an alignment I usually associate with people as actively helpful as she is.

1) At an indeterminate point during which the controller of the samsaran (be it PC or GM) wants to let the character's personality go and move on to a new character, even if that new character's a new incarnation of that soul. We keep that time indeterminate and fluid because the PC/GM will have different desires or needs or preferences each time it happens.

2) Only Pharasma knows! :-)

3) No reason. Chaotic neutral characters can be plenty helpful, though. They don't need to be insane crazies.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Found it here. It was from U1, and was made by the few druids that inhabit the Numerian forests...Hm.


James Jacobs wrote:
Lucent wrote:

Thanks so much for the prompt answers, JJ! It's great that you do this for the community, it really is.

1) In regards to the crown of the world:

I read that there is an ancient ruin(s?) at the crown of the world that predate Azlant. Are they Serpentfolk ruins? Cyclopean ruins? Or something older?

Has that site been detailed more in previous modules/APs?

2) On Clockworks:

Where in Golarion did clockwork technology originate? The "clicking caves" in Tian-Xia seem to indicate that the technology has been around a long time.

Are clockworks what are present in Numeria (the gearsmen)? Or is that more robotic than clockwork?

Based on the Bestiary 3 entries I was hoping that Distant Worlds would have had more information, but what was there seemed to be more robotic and less clockwork.

1) Pathfinder #51 is set entirely in the Crown of the World, and also has a big article about the continent. We reveal more about those ruins (but not EVERYTHING) in that volume.

2) Clockwork technology first originated in Azlant... so more than 12,000 years ago. The metal men of Numeria are not clockworks; they're full-on actual robots. There's some more info coming in Pathfinder #66 about clockworks, though!

That is absolutely fantastic news, on both accounts. I plan on running Jade Regent sometime next year, so having that information right at my fingertips is awesome.

As for the clockworks, I never would have imagined Azlant (and I'm not sure why that bias exists!), but it makes great sense and lends some fantastic lore to them.

It also makes me extra excited about PF #66!

I personally would love to see more clockwork rules/creatures.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Cheapy wrote:
Found it here. It was from U1, and was made by the few druids that inhabit the Numerian forests...Hm.

Interesting. A great example of some early stuff from a module that ended up not really making sense once the campaign setting itself settled in place.

Leaf armor still exists in the game—it's actually one of the new types of armor presented in the Inner Sea World Guide, but it's not from Numeria anymore. It's just from druids.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Lucent wrote:

As for the clockworks, I never would have imagined Azlant (and I'm not sure why that bias exists!), but it makes great sense and lends some fantastic lore to them.

It also makes me extra excited about PF #66!

I personally would love to see more clockwork rules/creatures.

Azlant's actually where a LOT of modern magical stuff comes from. And while clockworks were probably invented there... they really didn't come into their own, really until Thassilon, an Azlanti colony that ended up doing pretty well for itself.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

About Aztlan, how long their empire lasted?
Looking the timeline I see "Unknown" about the founding time, but what interest me is a approximate value to judge how much it could have changed in time.
About that, their culture was stable or it had different phases (like Rome was initially a kingdom, then a republic and later an empire)?


James Jacobs wrote:
Lucent wrote:

As for the clockworks, I never would have imagined Azlant (and I'm not sure why that bias exists!), but it makes great sense and lends some fantastic lore to them.

It also makes me extra excited about PF #66!

I personally would love to see more clockwork rules/creatures.

Azlant's actually where a LOT of modern magical stuff comes from. And while clockworks were probably invented there... they really didn't come into their own, really until Thassilon, an Azlanti colony that ended up doing pretty well for itself.

So Thassilon employed them as well? For some reason I always imagined the clockworks as a "from the great beyond" sort of thing. I had mostly expected them to be a product of another world in Golarion's system. But this sheds new light on Thassilon that I hadn't really anticipated, and it's a really awesome, clanking light.

Now I'm picturing the Runelords spying on their enemies and each other with clockwork spies, etc. Really interesting!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

It also explains the Clockwork Librarian quite well. I'm sure if I had actually read that chapter, it would've explained it too, but I haven't gotten that far yet.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Diego Rossi wrote:

About Aztlan, how long their empire lasted?

Looking the timeline I see "Unknown" about the founding time, but what interest me is a approximate value to judge how much it could have changed in time.
About that, their culture was stable or it had different phases (like Rome was initially a kingdom, then a republic and later an empire)?

Unknown on purpose. We want Azlant to remain somewhat mysterious for now. The empire crumbled 10,000 years ago, and the more we reveal about it, the less mysterious it gets.

Thassilon is essentially our "let's really detail an ancient empire" empire, not Azlant.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Lucent wrote:

So Thassilon employed them as well? For some reason I always imagined the clockworks as a "from the great beyond" sort of thing. I had mostly expected them to be a product of another world in Golarion's system. But this sheds new light on Thassilon that I hadn't really anticipated, and it's a really awesome, clanking light.

Now I'm picturing the Runelords spying on their enemies and each other with clockwork spies, etc. Really interesting!

Absolutely; clockworks were a big part of parts of Thassilon. They don't really have anything to do with the Great Beyond at all... inevitables are from the great beyond and they have some clockwork like features, but they're actually outsiders.


If Pharasma hates undead because they disturb the natural order, does that mean she also hates resurrection magic? Why or why not?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aratrok wrote:
If Pharasma hates undead because they disturb the natural order, does that mean she also hates resurrection magic? Why or why not?

She doesn't hate resurrection magic and similar effects because if something comes back to life, it's not "escaping" death at all... it's just postponing it. Life and death are equally sacred to Pharasma, so dying and resurrecting are just transitions that she approves of as the goddess of birth and death.

Undeath, on the other hand, is neither life NOR death, but the worst aspects of both. And THAT'S what Pharasma objects to.

Life is defined by death, and death is defined by life. Neither can exist without the other. They're two sides of the same proverbial coin.

Undeath is a mockery of that proverbial coin.


Undead are escaping death? So... do undead people not go to the boneyard when they're killed?

Also why would she care about raising mindless undead, then? It's just an animated body free of soul or conscience, like a construct.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Aratrok wrote:

Undead are escaping death? So... do undead people not go to the boneyard when they're killed?

Also why would she care about raising mindless undead, then? It's just an animated body free of soul or conscience, like a construct.

Typically, an undead creature's "soul" is in stasis, held captive by its undead state. Until an undead creature is destroyed, that soul can't be judged, and as such, it's an abomination to her church. As for mindless undead, while they do not retain the original creature's soul, really, they're still undead and as such still a mockery of the natural order of birth, life, death, and rebirth that Pharasma is all about.

(Note that mindless undead like skeletons and zombies are still evil...)


She always seemed like she was just mad about people avoiding her, your clarification makes a lot more sense.

(Well... as far as the rules say. That never made much sense to me either, since you can't have an alignment if you can't make decisions. Hence being mindless. My home games treat mindless undead as true neutral.)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

The flavor for skeletons and zombies does what it can to explain the fact that, while mindless, they're still evil—it's the evil of the magic that animates them that compels them to seek out life to destroy if they have no other commands, but they do so mindlessly.

Shadow Lodge

Where has the demiplane of Leng appeared, prior to the upcoming Pathfinder #65?


James Jacobs wrote:
Aratrok wrote:

Undead are escaping death? So... do undead people not go to the boneyard when they're killed?

Also why would she care about raising mindless undead, then? It's just an animated body free of soul or conscience, like a construct.

Typically, an undead creature's "soul" is in stasis, held captive by its undead state. Until an undead creature is destroyed, that soul can't be judged, and as such, it's an abomination to her church. As for mindless undead, while they do not retain the original creature's soul, really, they're still undead and as such still a mockery of the natural order of birth, life, death, and rebirth that Pharasma is all about.

(Note that mindless undead like skeletons and zombies are still evil...)

What about the alchemist's or wizard's immortality class features? Or druids with the "reincarnated" archetype? Or monks of the "four winds" archetype? Does she despise all those who attempt to "cheat" death?


When I rage as a barbarian for X rounds, do I have to spend x+1 rounds worth of rage? (due to if I end it first thing on my turn, I still get charged for that turn)?

for an example:

round 1: rage, attack monster
fighter buddy also attacks and kills monster

round 2: on my turn I get charged round of rage (as duration of last round ends right before my turn). First thing I do is end rage, but do I still get charged?

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

To better explain Georgios question:

A barbarian must use a free action to stop a rage, not to extend it (like a bard performance). As the action can only performed during the barbarian turn it has already started his second round of rage when he stop it and so some of us feel it should pay the second round of rage.

Corollary: a character immune to fatigue can rage cycle (stopping and starting a rage during the same round) to recharge the "once a rage" abilities.
If he must spend 1 round or rage at the start of the turn rage cycling has a cost, as stopping the previous rage and starting a new one will cost him a extra round of rage. If you can stop your rage in a "start of turn" phase before the actual start of your turn it become possible to rage cycle without any cost in rage rounds.

Note: no one say he can't stop his rage at the end of his turn.


Barbarian - Rage wrote:
A barbarian can end her rage as a free action and is fatigued after rage for a number of rounds equal to 2 times the number of rounds spent in the rage.

There's nothing stopping a Barbarian from ending her rage at the end of her turn.

The problem is people wanting to have that Rage up incase of things like Attacks of Opportunity. To be good at something, you have to sacrifice a little elsewhere. Look at things like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Two-Weapon Fighting. All give benefits, paired with drawbacks.

You can't have your cake and eat it to you know.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:


Leaf armor still exists in the game—it's actually one of the new types of armor presented in the Inner Sea World Guide, but it's not from Numeria anymore. It's just from druids.

So it's made from REAL druids? It's a serious question, I've already been burned once about Girl Scout cookies.


Dear Diego Rossi, I don't care about that recharging. My barbarian is level 3 and I don't think he is going to get to 17 as we usually stop at around 8th or 9th level.

I was reading the tread about rage cycling though and my group has always played it that if you end a rage on your turn before doing anything, you don't get charged for that turn worth of rage. People on that thread through are saying we do it wrong?

Dear Tels: I get fatigued if I end my rage at the end of each turn. I am not using a build made to do all that fancy stuff people use with being immune to fatigue, so if I end my rage at the end of each turn in case combat ends before my next turn, then I couldn't start it again. Or else I am paying an "extra" round of rage every time I rage. But I want to follow RAW and I have probably enough rage for it (I end most days with extra), it is just that we don't use house rules (after a DM a while ago got too happy with them, we all agreed that it is better to do RAW) so I want to know what the rule is.

And I play the barbarian. I don't have cake and eat it, I smash cake! :)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Hi, James.

Unlike a fair amount of crosstalk on these boards about the general rule that all undead in Golarion are evil, I'm entirely on-board with the concept.

I have one question about a particular undead creature in an AP that's listed with a non-evil alignment...

Spoiler:
...the ghost nymph Myriana in Hook Mountain Massacre.

In the original version, she's listed as being Chaotic Neutral. I assumed that, with the evolution of the "rules" of how things work in Golarion, that she'd be statted as evil in the Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition. But she's still listed as CN.

I was wondering if that creature's alignment listing was an oversight, or if it was a deliberate design decision to make an exception to the general "all undead are evil" rule.

Thanks!


Haladir wrote:

Hi, James.

Unlike a fair amount of crosstalk on these boards about the general rule that all undead in Golarion are evil, I'm entirely on-board with the concept.

I have one question about a particular undead creature in an AP that's listed with a non-evil alignment...

** spoiler omitted **

I was wondering if that creature's alignment listing was an oversight, or if it was a deliberate design decision to make an exception to the general "all undead are evil" rule.

Thanks!

Ghosts are an exception to the "undead are always evil" rule, and I've heard that from James himself.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Modules Subscriber
Icyshadow wrote:
Ghosts are an exception to the "undead are always evil" rule, and I've heard that from James himself.

Actually, there have even been good ghosts in official PF APs.

Spoiler:
Vesorianna Hawkran, for example

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

"Always evil" does not preclude unique exceptions. It's what makes those exceptions special. RAW text is for building the foundations of a game, not a millstone to shackle possibilities.


1:
How does creating undead, intelligent undead via (Greater) Create Undead in particular, from your own corpse (Clone, Reincarnate, Restore Corpse and True Resurrection among other things let you interact with a mostly intact version of your own corpse) work?

2:

Quote:
Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder.

How does the bold work for an Amulet of Mighty Fists, which effects your unarmed strike and thus every part of your body?

3:
Zombies can now be made from "any corporeal creature" (not just ones with skeletal structures)

a: Do Construct need to have been animated to be used, or is just crafting a body enough
b: Because anything can be made into an animated object: How does a zombie animated object (chair) work?
c: What does Pharasma think of Animated Object Skeletons, both temporary from the spell and long lasting from Craft Construct?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Carlos Cabrera wrote:
Where has the demiplane of Leng appeared, prior to the upcoming Pathfinder #65?

Aside from appearing in several of Lovecraft's stories (notably "Dream Quest of Unknown Kadath," with a cameo of sorts in "At the Mountains of Madness" and a few others,) and also being mentioned here and there in other works of fiction...

...we first mentioned Leng in Pathfinder in:

Spoiler:
Rise of the Runelords' sixth adventure, "Spires of Xin-Shalast." Leng is mentioned also in the Great Beyond, and as well is mentioned a few other times in other adventures, such as "The Jackal's Price" and a few other modules and adventures. But "Into the Nightmare Rift" in Pathfinder #65 is the first time we actually go to Leng.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Detect Magic wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
Aratrok wrote:

Undead are escaping death? So... do undead people not go to the boneyard when they're killed?

Also why would she care about raising mindless undead, then? It's just an animated body free of soul or conscience, like a construct.

Typically, an undead creature's "soul" is in stasis, held captive by its undead state. Until an undead creature is destroyed, that soul can't be judged, and as such, it's an abomination to her church. As for mindless undead, while they do not retain the original creature's soul, really, they're still undead and as such still a mockery of the natural order of birth, life, death, and rebirth that Pharasma is all about.

(Note that mindless undead like skeletons and zombies are still evil...)

What about the alchemist's or wizard's immortality class features? Or druids with the "reincarnated" archetype? Or monks of the "four winds" archetype? Does she despise all those who attempt to "cheat" death?

Those class features do not cheat death forever. Pharasma is very, very patient. Those rare few characters who manage to achieve immortality are allowed to do so because for whatever reason they deserve it, but Pharasma knows that eventually, death will catch up to them.

Pharasma doesn't mind if someone lives for a thousand years, ten thousand years, or only a few seconds. Each person's life is different, and she's been around from the start. She's probalby the most patient of all the deities. She can wait.

In other words, it's not at all the TIME that vexes her when a soul is kept from the Boneyard when it becomes undead. It's the mere fact that it IS undead.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Georgios wrote:

When I rage as a barbarian for X rounds, do I have to spend x+1 rounds worth of rage? (due to if I end it first thing on my turn, I still get charged for that turn)?

for an example:

round 1: rage, attack monster
fighter buddy also attacks and kills monster

round 2: on my turn I get charged round of rage (as duration of last round ends right before my turn). First thing I do is end rage, but do I still get charged?

You can end your rage as a free action. So yeah, you'd get charged because your round has to start before you can use a free action.

THAT SAID.
I would let you end the rage without charging you a round, probably, in my game... provided that you end the rage at the very start of your turn before you take any other actions.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Diego Rossi wrote:

To better explain Georgios question:

A barbarian must use a free action to stop a rage, not to extend it (like a bard performance). As the action can only performed during the barbarian turn it has already started his second round of rage when he stop it and so some of us feel it should pay the second round of rage.

Corollary: a character immune to fatigue can rage cycle (stopping and starting a rage during the same round) to recharge the "once a rage" abilities.
If he must spend 1 round or rage at the start of the turn rage cycling has a cost, as stopping the previous rage and starting a new one will cost him a extra round of rage. If you can stop your rage in a "start of turn" phase before the actual start of your turn it become possible to rage cycle without any cost in rage rounds.

Note: no one say he can't stop his rage at the end of his turn.

No need to better explain it. Because all this did was overcomplicate things... I have come to appreciate simple, quick rules questions, in other words.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Tels wrote:
Barbarian - Rage wrote:
A barbarian can end her rage as a free action and is fatigued after rage for a number of rounds equal to 2 times the number of rounds spent in the rage.

There's nothing stopping a Barbarian from ending her rage at the end of her turn.

The problem is people wanting to have that Rage up incase of things like Attacks of Opportunity. To be good at something, you have to sacrifice a little elsewhere. Look at things like Power Attack, Combat Expertise, Two-Weapon Fighting. All give benefits, paired with drawbacks.

You can't have your cake and eat it to you know.

Unless your GM lets you. I would let him do so in this case.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

LazarX wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


Leaf armor still exists in the game—it's actually one of the new types of armor presented in the Inner Sea World Guide, but it's not from Numeria anymore. It's just from druids.

So it's made from REAL druids? It's a serious question, I've already been burned once about Girl Scout cookies.

The word "made" in this case is omitted from my reply because:

1) It is not in fact "made" from druids...

OR

2) It IS made from druids and I'm trying to cover it up.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Haladir wrote:

Hi, James.

Unlike a fair amount of crosstalk on these boards about the general rule that all undead in Golarion are evil, I'm entirely on-board with the concept.

I have one question about a particular undead creature in an AP that's listed with a non-evil alignment...

** spoiler omitted **

I was wondering if that creature's alignment listing was an oversight, or if it was a deliberate design decision to make an exception to the general "all undead are evil" rule.

Thanks!

That's not an oversight. Ghosts are not always evil. There's several other examples of non-evil ghosts in our adventures.

Why?

My opinion on undead is very much influenced by how undead have acted in movies and novels and stories beyond RPGs that I enjoy and respect. There's plenty of stories about non-evil undead in stories, but for the most part, I hate those stories because they're generally either poorly written or just annoying.

There are exceptions. And many of those exceptions are about non-evil ghosts. Some examples of excellent non-evil ghost movies:

Spoiler:
The Others, The Sixth Sense, The Devil's Backbone, Below—you can even argue that the ghosts in The Fog aren't evil... just very vengeful.

As a result, I'm pretty open to the idea of non-evil ghosts, because I've seen lots of well-done examples.

Also, I suspect that some day we'll do a non-evil vampire (we may have done so already and I'm just forgetting it), because I've seen non-evil vampires done well also... but nearly ALWAYS as unique cases amid societies of vampires where evil is the status quo for vampires.

Movies like:

Spoiler:
Near Dark and shows like True Blood are great examples of this. Let the Right One In/Let Me In are the only two vampire movies I can think of off the top of my head where there's only one vampire and it's arguably not evil and it's still a great movie that I can think of.

And taking that even further, I suppose if I'm impressed enough by a writer, I could see other examples of non-evil undead...

BUT.

Non-evil ghosts are rare.

Compared to non-evil vampires, though, non-evil ghosts are common.

And compared to non-evil other undead, non-evil vampires are common.

If someone wants to do an adventure about a non-evil undead that's not a ghost for Pathfinder, they have to earn that right by being a GREAT writer and have to have a GREAT idea. And such an idea would need to be the central theme to the story, not an add-on.

In any case... nope. Not an oversight. The horror of that particular ghost is not that she's a ghost, but it's what MADE her a ghost.


The thought of a Numerian barbarian draped in the skins of druids sewn into leaf-shapes, one mechanical arm hissing and whirring as he holds his gleaming fist to the sky...

...I want that Numeria book so bad.

And onto questions:

I've never been entirely clear on this: Is the entirety of the Mana Wastes an dead magic zone with pockets of primal magic (where magic can function, but improperly) or is it pockets of both dead and primal magic?

What about in Alkenstar?

I was always under the assumption that the entire country was magic dead, with "storms" of primal magic welling up unpredictably.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
"Always evil" does not preclude unique exceptions. It's what makes those exceptions special. RAW text is for building the foundations of a game, not a millstone to shackle possibilities.

Correct.

And by adopting a firm "Non-ghost undead are ALWAYS EVIL," I keep things from being flooded by countless writers eager to break that rule and suddenly it's no longer an exception.

EXAMPLE: Before Driz'zt, drow were almost always evil. They remained almost always evil AFTER Driz'zt... but that's not the public perception.

I don't want that happening to undead.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

deuxhero wrote:

1:

How does creating undead, intelligent undead via (Greater) Create Undead in particular, from your own corpse (Clone, Reincarnate, Restore Corpse and True Resurrection among other things let you interact with a mostly intact version of your own corpse) work?

2:

Quote:
Upon command, a flaming weapon is sheathed in fire that deals an extra 1d6 points of fire damage on a successful hit. The fire does not harm the wielder.

How does the bold work for an Amulet of Mighty Fists, which effects your unarmed strike and thus every part of your body?

3:
Zombies can now be made from "any corporeal creature" (not just ones with skeletal structures)

a: Do Construct need to have been animated to be used, or is just crafting a body enough
b: Because anything can be made into an animated object: How does a zombie animated object (chair) work?
c: What does Pharasma think of Animated Object Skeletons, both temporary from the spell and long lasting from Craft Construct?

1) It doesn't, unless someone else casts those spells on your corpse. Self-achieved undeath is actually a pretty difficult task if you want to retain your personality and free will. The lich is an example. Some class options might allow for it as a capstone ability. But otherwise... it's not something that's all that easy or common to purposefully self-achieve undeath while retaining free will. It's easy to offer yourself up to something like a vampire or another spawn-creating undead, but in most cases, you end up enslaved to the creator. Ghouls are the only exception I can think of off the top of my head... which is why Golarion has a pretty sizable ghoul subculture in some regions of the world.

2) Your natural attacks become sheathed in fire, be they fists or a bite or wings or a tail slap or a stinger or whatever. The fire still doesn't harm you.

3) That text should be amended to say "any living corporeal creature." Zombie constructs don't make sense to me for a lot of reasons both rules mechanics and flavor-wise. You'll never see a zombie construct in Golarion. Unless we screw up, of course.


1: So does the spell just fail or what? What if someone else casts them on your corpse after you were rezed?

2: Seems logical. I was more wondering about harming EVERYTHING ELSE.

3: Even Flesh Golem Zombies? Also 3 C isn't really all THAT related.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Lucent wrote:

I've never been entirely clear on this: Is the entirety of the Mana Wastes an dead magic zone with pockets of primal magic (where magic can function, but improperly) or is it pockets of both dead and primal magic?

What about in Alkenstar?

I was always under the assumption that the entire country was magic dead, with "storms" of primal magic welling up unpredictably.

The mana wastes are sheathed in what's called "primal magic." Normally, magic infuses reality in a pretty even layer, but in the Mana Wastes, magic is NOT even. It's like windy air, or storm churned water. The magic flows and crashes and moves about chaotically, sometimes working normally, sometimes not working at all, but usually working randomly. There are pockets and areas of stability in the wastes, just as there are pockets of no magic. These pockets can last for hours, days, years, or even centuries... as the stories we want to tell require.

Same goes for Alkenstar.

The region is NOT entirely magic dead. It's magic unreliable.

The reason they're called the "Mana Wastes" is because it's a magic desert.

If magic were, say, vegetation... there's plants growing most everywhere. But in a place like the Mana Wastes, these plants would be rare. Large stretches would have no plant life at all. There are oasises of plantlife here and there. And plants can be carried with you. The analogy breaks down when you add in the fact that there are these "storms" that move magic around—imagine if there were storms in deserts that could move plants across the sand in rivers and sheets so that you could be standing in sand one moment, then amid a bunch of plants the next. That's kinda what's going on with magic in the Mana Wastes.


Are the Mana Wastes an actual desert in terms of rainfall?

Do undead and constructs who enter the mana wastes stay undead (They do in anti-magic fields, but the fluff here seems entirely different)?

23,651 to 23,700 of 49,196 << first < prev | 469 | 470 | 471 | 472 | 473 | 474 | 475 | 476 | 477 | 478 | 479 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / >>Ask *James Jacobs* ALL your Questions Here!<< All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.